posted at 5:31 pm on January 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

I’m intrigued and oddly impressed at how obviously Paul’s maneuvering for 2016. First the trip to Israel, then the bill to nullify any executive actions taken by Obama on guns, now this double-barreled shot at grassroots conservatives’ new bete noire. One of the things about the elder Paul that some people loved and others found off-putting was that he never seemed terribly interested in ingratiating himself with mainstream conservatives. If you’re a fan, maybe you took that as proof of principle, that he was above gladhanding political nonsense towards people foolish enough not to embrace libertarianism wholeheartedly. If you aren’t, you took it as evidence that he disdained the rank-and-file Republicans whose votes he’d need to win and wasn’t willing to bend towards some of their concerns. It’s an open question how similar Ron and Rand are on policy, but from a pure retail standpoint, Rand seems way more willing to play to the wider GOP base. The clearest example to date was him endorsing Romney last year while Ron predictably refused. But dumping on a guy who’s irritated everyone to the right of “Morning Joe” lately is another small yet effective way to do it:

Paul claimed that Christie had “backed down” on gun rights: “You have some Republicans backing down like Christie backing down and criticizing the NRA, and I think that doesn’t do any good.”

When asked by Ingraham why Christie made the comments, he responded that they were politically calculated. “I think he may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans.”

Paul warned Christie that his criticism of the NRA, as well as his criticism of fellow Republicans over the Sandy relief bill, would come back to haunt him if he made a presidential run in 2016. “I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all sixty billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum,’ I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary.”

“I think people need to think through what their position on these things are.” Paul concluded.

The field will be more crowded, with many heavier hitters, in 2016 than it was in 2012, but I’d bet cash money that Rand will do better than Ron did, especially if Obama continues to fiddle on entitlements. The more dire the fiscal situation gets, the more appealing a harder line libertarian appears vis-a-vis a more traditional conservative Republican pol.

As for Christie, between the post-Sandy Obama photo op, the grandstanding on Sandy relief, and now dumping on the NRA while saying nothing about Obama’s own bit of child exploitation, WaPo’s wondering if he’s already finished for 2016. I doubt it. To repeat a point made recently, the lesson of nominating McCain and Romney is that the national Republican primary electorate is way bigger than the universe of grassroots conservatives. Christie could lose every last tea-party vote and conceivably still squeak through to some sort of Romney-esque victory over a divided conservative field. (Then again, if it were that easy, why didn’t Giuliani win in 2008?) But I still think he’d be better off hooking up with Bloomberg and running a serious third-party campaign. For better or worse, after all the betrayals of conservatives lately, that’s his brand now. If he had a few hundred million from Bloomy to jump-start him and some serious media buzz about being the first credible independent candidate since Perot, who knows what he could do? Republicans’ popularity is at a recent historic low in some polls and Christie’s popularity is sky high. If he ends up with the right opponents — Cuomo, say, if Hillary doesn’t run and maybe Rand Paul on the right — it’s not impossible to imagine him contending seriously. Think of it: The first “No Labels” president. What could go wrong?

Via Newsbusters, here’s Andrea Mitchell marveling at the fact that, notwithstanding Christie’s blue-state pander about their “reprehensible” ad, the NRA is a reasonably popular organization.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I hoped it’s agreed that no one here supports that self-promoting Dem leaning Chris Christie. And don’t even support him for reelection in nj. We need to get him out of the spotlight. I know… he probably would block the spotlight anyway. Let him go back to aggressively advocating climate change and other Dem causes.

Maybe. But if fat boy loses 100 pounds and actually tries to run as a Republican in three years, mark my words: he’ll tack hilariously to the right in a vain attempt to pander for conservative votes. And I do mean vain.

I’m excited for the staged hunting photo op with Christie. That has Dukakis potential.

I fail to see how Rubio’s new found desire to reform immigration helps him with the base. Yes, neither are very subtle about 2016 but both have different strategies. Paul is trying to separate himself from his dad. Rubio is trying to show that he is a serious legislator.

As for the Republican governors.. I cannot name most of them. Can you? And of the ones I can name only Jindal, Butterball, and Walker seem like possible Presidential candidates. Walker isn’t running because his BFF is. Butterball is running but we can hope that he flames out spectacularly. Jindal basically has a Christie problem; Jindal just waited until after the election to knife Romney in the back.

cptacek. Ummm.. that wasn’t my list of governors. I was pointing out why said governors wouldn’t be running. Chris Christie is a non starter. Walker isn’t running because he and Ryan are BFFs and Ryan is most definitely running. The only R governor who could make a run for it is Jindal. I personally am not a fan because of his behavior after the election. On a more relevant note to people not named Illinidiva, Jindal doesn’t offer anything different from Ryan and Rubio and the latter two are more charismatic. I don’t get the fixation with governors as president. Yes, they can handle crises but there are good and bad governors turned president.. Think Jimmy Carter. And having lots of legislative experience isn’t bad for a domestic agenda.. Think Lyndon Johnson.

I like everything about Rand Paul except the noises he’s making about Amnesty. Whatever budget cuts you could ever possibly make would be overwhelmed 1000 to 1 if you ever allowed illegal immigrants to have citizenship.

You’re talking about 20-30 million people coming out of the woodwork wanting food stamps, government housing, MediCaire, MediCare, Social Security, etc. trillion and trillions added to the budget overnight.

But Chris Christie is completely dead to me, and I say this as a one time fan.

As for the Republican governors.. I cannot name most of them. Can you?
Illinidiva on January 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM

cptacek. Ummm.. that wasn’t my list of governors.
Illinidiva on January 19, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I was answering your question. No, I can’t name most of them, but I can name some of them.

Brewer is 68. Brownback was a candidate in 2008 and created little interest. I like Pence and Martinez. Perry has a major task rebuilding his image.

bw222 on January 19, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I would never vote for Brownback for anything, even though is is my governor and is doing a pretty good job. When he voted to confirm personal-friend-to-and-contribution-recipient-of-George-Tiller Sebelius as HHS secretary, I vowed to never vote for him again, and I won’t.

I like Perry, and he does have a major task, but I don’t think it is impossible.

Rand Paul is the ONLY candidate who can save the GOP. But he does have work to do. Other than that he just needs more time for Obama’s policies to produce catastrophic results. True libertarianism is the way to win the bigger cities over time. More social conservatives can win in smaller locales and pro-gay-marriage libertarians can win in bigger cities. Sad truth is that in big cities they vote for who’s the hippest and coolest, as pathetic as that is.

It’s about time to play low and dirty like the Dems. Make Christie out to be a rich, fat, ugly hog. Take as many photos of him with his mouth full as possible. Gross out the electorate on his appearance alone. Trigger America’s superficial, Hollywood-based, anti-fatso bias. Later attack his policies.

I like everything about Rand Paul except the noises he’s making about Amnesty. Whatever budget cuts you could ever possibly make would be overwhelmed 1000 to 1 if you ever allowed illegal immigrants to have citizenship.

BradTank on January 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Agree. No one seems to be willing to address the effect that amnesty will have on the country: in moving it farther to the left and in terms of added debt as they are able to qualify for more entitlement programs and sponsor their relatives.

Agree. No one seems to be willing to address the effect that amnesty will have on the country: in moving it farther to the left and in terms of added debt as they are able to qualify for more entitlement programs and sponsor their relatives.

bw222

This nonsense that “tough on the border” policies are hurting the GOP is pure nonsense. The problem is, too many conservatives are unwilling to make the case, they’re almost ashamed of the position that yes, we should enforce our immigration laws.

If Republicans ran an ad showing how 20 million illegals would have access to Social Security and Medicare, I guarantee Democrats would be running for the hills on pushing Amnesty

Well if Dick Cheney’s in the hunting party-he’s better wear lots of Orange-and flashing lights.

Don L on January 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Not just Cheney. If I’m up in the box stand at dusk and I see a doe on one edge of the lane and some big rhinoceros-looking thing over on the other feeding its face, I shoot the rhino thing just to see what it is and maybe make the local news.

If Republicans ran an ad showing how 20 million illegals would have access to Social Security and Medicare, I guarantee Democrats would be running for the hills on pushing Amnesty

BradTank on January 19, 2013 at 7:59 PM

If you think people got pissed at line-jumpers at gas stations during Sandy, wait until even liberal Americans finally realize that their Social Security that they paid in is being given to the wave of border crashers whom 0bama is about to give the key to the city.. The liberals definitely deserve to starve for what they’ve done to a once-great country, but just to see their faces as they watch their lunch being eaten by illegals signed up by the Dems would be sweet.

It’s not just liberals. Reagan signed the amnbesty of 1986. RINOS like McCain. Graham, Gingrich, Rubio, Ryan, etc. support amnesty. Even Rand Paul has said amnesty is an issue he can work with Dems on.

If you think people got pissed at line-jumpers at gas stations during Sandy, wait until even liberal Americans finally realize that their Social Security that they paid in is being given to the wave of border crashers whom 0bama is about to give the key to the city.. The liberals definitely deserve to starve for what they’ve done to a once-great country, but just to see their faces as they watch their lunch being eaten by illegals signed up by the Dems would be sweet.

cane_loader on January 19, 2013 at 8:12 PM

If nothing else, they are line jumpers. Everyone understands the concept of line jumpers. Nobody likes them. It’s easy to understand.

It would be a very effective argument for border security, besides all the other obvious dangers to open borders. How many times have your heard the GOP use that? Like, uh.. never.

That’s why we lose. Our side never does anything that is simple and effective.Because if they did.. the left would get mad at them and they don’t want to left to get mad at them.

From his supposed “keynote address” at the convention which was more of a “My Life & Times” self-promotion to his over-effusive praise of Obama for Sandy relief (much of the help he was thanking him for never did arrive) to his refusal to countenance reasonable fiscal prudence on the 85% of the relief bill which was clearly NOT emergency spending, Christie has demonstrated he was one of those stars of the internet age who fizzle rapidly upon scrutiny.

I expect we’ll be reading/hearing for the next few years, in increasing frequency, how it is that Christie “represents the real GOP…” from the Leftmedia. We’ll hear over and over again how it is that the Tearty — Conservatives — are the enemy (“the real terrorists, says that awful, crazy man from West Point, of all places, as also similar statements nationwide from Leftwing university ‘faculty’ damning anyone they can connect to the Teaparty)…

This is how the Left works the GOP over, by Leftmedia establishing false flags, the false narrative, then damning while insisting the Right respond to that and whatever the response is is further condemned as illegitimate on one issue scale or another.

I appreciate Rand Paul speaking frankly about Christie. But none of us on the Right should expect anything from media about Christie other than the use of him as some icon of ‘right’ to condemn the actual Right voters.

I also think his schtick is wearing thin, or soon will with most people. Everyone I talk to on both sides finds it mildly amusing. They also find Christie’s political opportunism personally repulsive.
Obamunists like his pig-snout-in-the-trough and embrace of Teh Won grandstanding over Sandy but conservatives are disgusted by it, just as they’re disgusted by his recent attack on the NRA. Every time he opens his big mouth he pushes conservatives and Republicans away.

single stack on January 19, 2013 at 5:32 AM

I agree with all of that. And the louder and longer Christie receives Leftmedia focus, the worse the GOP credibility will become.

Leftmedia focuses on these people like Christie, Bloomberg, Crist, McCain, Huntsman, RON Paul, Hagel…because it pulls the GOP credibility down and discourages voters on the Right.

I also think we on the Right need to stop promoting “possible Presidential candidates” as if they are icons of All That’s Right, for two primary reasons: no one person is that and we should be focused instead on Congress.

The Presidential possibles should be emerged after the next Congressional election and promoting who-him-her-what before then only runs down support for them with the inevitable critical discussions about ‘them’ each, whoever they are.

I like Rand Paul so far, I like Paul Ryan as to his values (problems with his voting record, though), I’ve never considered Christie acceptable for what’s important to me — an obnoxious character, certainly, but his media parade just before last Presidential election in hugging Obama was so insulting to Romney — and as to Rubio, he’s still no closer than arm’s length to my level of confidence as to a President.

I think it’s time to stop demanding a candidate, however, be Mr. Perfect (or Ms.). No one is ever going to be such and NOT wanting such doesn’t make one “squishy”…we all have to work together now.

I’m not suggesting surrendering one’s ideals, I’m only suggesting that we not put possible Pres. candidates on SUCH a pedestal that emergence of their inevitable humanity and values, especially, sees them denigrated by voters on the Right.

Example, I like Perry but even he has liabilities. We all have them, liabilities.

Also, any politician who is from any area because of that area’s urban city is going to be “out of touch” with the rest of us. Christie and it looks like most from the East Coast, same as from Michigan (Detroit), Illinois (Chicago), California (LA, SF), even Florida now (Miami, Orlando, Tampa), WA with Seattle..these are politicians elected by their urban voters mostly without inclusion of voter opinion outside their urban areas.

It’s an imbalance in constituency I’d like to see changed in our voting process but until it is, politicians sent to DC from states due to their urban voters, predominantly, are going to push the Progressive, Leftwing “change”.

Off the top of my head, along with your list: Rick Perry, Sam Brownback, Jan Brewer, Rick Scott, Mike Pence, Susan Martinez.
cptacek on January 19, 2013 at 5:43 PM

I like Jan Brewer. Certainly if she got close to the top, the RINOs would try to Palinize her

If you think people got pissed at line-jumpers at gas stations during Sandy, wait until even liberal Americans finally realize that their Social Security that they paid in is being given to the wave of border crashers whom 0bama is about to give the key to the city..
cane_loader on January 19, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Neither DEMS nor RINOs want to talk about the fact the bulk of illegals pushed millions of Americans out of jobs. Only about a million of 20 million work in agriculture.

The RINOs want to hire them, and the DEMs want to organize them.

There is a complete disconnect between our unemployment numbers, and 20 million illegals working

The politicians, and the MSM want the illegals to hold those jobs so badly they block out any discussion of this job theft by calling it ‘racism’. They want it so bad, they will throw away rule of law to get it. Both parties.

Not sure where libertarians stand on open borders. However, with our huge welfare state, we cannot afford the flow, which will not end with amnesty. The flow will continue until someone is elected to the WH who wants to stop it

think it’s time to stop demanding a candidate, however, be Mr. Perfect (or Ms.). No one is ever going to be such and NOT wanting such doesn’t make one “squishy”…we all have to work together now.

Lourdes on January 20, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Without first seeking someone with character and goodness, the rest of the qualities become meaningless and can be found in many a dictator.
(That old “Mussolini made the trains run on time” bit)
No more Mr.Etch-a sketches, winning with a smooth-talking, well-imaged, expert on all things who gets elected and becomes another back-stabbing, America-hating, flexibly-principled-vote-buyer….